https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Thanks, I'll take a look. Kyrill can you please assign the bug to me? I don't
seem to have to chops to edit the bz.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: siddhesh at gotplt dot org
Target Milestone: ---
gcc trunk throws a bogus warning about incompatible function cast when the cast
target and the function have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
--- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
There's also a PyCFunctionWithoutArgs that takes just one parameter so it'll
have to be one arg onwards but I don't know the impact on it's API. I'm going
to test that when I get back home tonight and pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84531
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #4 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
Reduced C test case:
#define MAX 98
void foo (unsigned long *res, unsigned long in)
{
for (unsigned long a = 0; a < MAX; a++)
for (unsigned long b = 0; b < MAX; b++)
for (unsigned long c =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
This fixes the problem for me. freq_max < 1, i.e. freq_max of one of the bbs
in the function means that it ends up having a profile count larger than 2^30
since the freq_max gets reset to 16. Dropping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #6 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #5)
> This fixes the problem for me. freq_max < 1, i.e. freq_max of one of the
> bbs in the function means that it ends up having a profile count larger than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #12 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to rdapp from comment #11)
> 416.gamess fails on S390 as well since r254888.
>
> I didn't immediately get what the
>
> if (freq_max < 16)
> freq_max = 16;
>
> part of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
--- Comment #13 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> Maybe some more extensive testing of your patch would increase
> the chances of it being accepted.
make check just finished on aarch64 and saw no failur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88783
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103456
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org
13 matches
Mail list logo
